著者

Kitajima Keiko

出版者

国立保健医療科学院

雑誌

保健医療科学 (ISSN:13476459)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.60, pp.451-452, 2011-10

---

Objectives: This study aims to make clear the notion of community resilience in disaster management, in order to provide appropriate support systems throughout the disaster management cycle. In order to comprehend community resilience, three main specific objectives were set out: first, to figure out the general understanding on community resilience from the collection of community actions in literature; second, to understand how to measure the level of community resilience; and finally, to understand how the vulnerable groups are in an emergency, in terms of community resilience. 1) To identify the characteristics of community resilience in each phase of the disaster management cycle. 2) To summarize the current measurements of the community resilience in a disaster. 3) To summarize the special consideration given to vulnerable people.Study Design and Methods: A review of literature was conducted using a few databases with the keywords, "disaster," "flood," "water hazard," "community resilience," and "community mobilization." References cited in the literature were also reviewed. After the selection of articles, the concept of community resilience by Norris et al. (social capital, community competence, and information and communication) was adapted to analyze the characteristics of community resilience when faced with floods through a disaster management cycle. Next, measurements of the level of community resilience were also investigated, in terms of its development by indicators and analysis. In addition, considerations found in literature were summarized in terms of the protection of vulnerable populations: chronic disease patients, socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, and women and children.Results: 1) The characteristics in each phase of the disaster management cycle: According to each phase, the characteristics of collective actions were observed. In terms of "social capital" and "community competence," rescue operations, collective efficacy, and restoring contact between separated families, as well as the development of crisis committees were reported (relief phase). In addition, mutual cooperation in communities, nationwide ethnic community support, community mental support, etc., were found (recovery and rehabilitation phase). Moreover, actions for preparing and mitigating the next disaster, such as gaining a sense of community, enhancing collective efficacy and empowerment, and networking and building political partnerships by learning and practicing the process, were also observed (preparedness, early warning, and mitigation phase). In terms of "information and communication," emergency information delivery among community members and local knowledge of crises based on experience were reported (relief phase). Oral histories were being utilized in all phases of the disaster management cycle to raise awareness of citizen preparedness. Furthermore, community participatory preparedness actions, such as developing a hazard map and an early warning system, were also important (in preparedness, early warning, and mitigation phase). 2) Measurements of the level of community resilience were developed and found valid by tests, however when implementing these measurements in other cases, the development of another set of indicators according to the socio- and culturaleconomic context is still needed. 3) Meanwhile, for vulnerable people, the socioeconomic factors in the disaster management context have a greater impact on them, and there is still not enough evidence of support mechanisms for community resilience on this matter.Conclusion: 1) All the factors from the characteristics of community resilience are important, and they are strongly connected and interact with each other. Among all the factors, organizing collective efforts becomes the core of the community resilience to water hazards. Additionally, it demonstrates the characteristic of forming community cohesion at the first stage and then expanding to the outside community to cooperate together. However it is believed that social capital, which is based on a network and relationship of mutual trust, has become the core of community resilience. Additionally, each factor is strongly connected to the others. 2) Measurements of community resilience are developed to some extent (economic development, social capital, and collective efficacy). However they still need to be adjusted to the study area by developing indicators and analyzing the social and cultural context. More accurate measurement requires future research and development. 3) Support mechanisms for the vulnerable population are not sufficient at present, thus community-based support mechanisms should be introduced and improved in order not to leave these populations marginalized in a crisis and to involve them in the community-based disaster management cycle.